Walker v. Weinstock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walker v. Weinstock

255 A.D.2d 508, 680 N.Y.S.2d 177

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 508 (Walker v. Weinstock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walker v. Weinstock, 255 A.D.2d 508, 680 N.Y.S.2d 177 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the ownership interests of the parties in 4200 Avenue K Realty Corporation, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated February 4, 1998, as, in effect, denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered June 24, 1997.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon their motion to vacate the judgment, the appellants failed to present either new evidence which, if introduced at trial, would have produced a different result (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]), or any evidence of fraud on the part of the plaintiffs (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). Therefore, the motion was properly denied.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring the ownership interests of the parties in 4200 Avenue K Realty Corporation, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated February 4, 1998, as, in effect, denied their motion to vacate a judgment of the same court entered June 24, 1997.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Upon their motion to vacate the judgment, the appellants failed to present either new evidence which, if introduced at trial, would have produced a different result (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]), or any evidence of fraud on the part of the plaintiffs (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). Therefore, the motion was properly denied.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 508, 680 N.Y.S.2d 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-weinstock-nyappdiv-1998.